I wasn't just wrong, I was being an idiot. "When Google was in the thick of Android's development in 2006 and 2007 - long before the platform ever reached retail - it was a very different product, almost unrecognizable compared to the products we used today. Documents dated May of 2007 and made public during the course of Oracle's lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android show off a number of those preliminary user interface elements, prominently marked 'subject to change', and you can see how this used to be a product focused on portrait QWERTY devices." I'm hoping I can dive into this a little deeper tomorrow; since it's the busiest period of the year for my little company right now, I don't have the time to do it today. Just to make sure nobody thinks I'm just going to ignore this, I figured it'd be a good idea to post a quickie today. I'll get back to this tomorrow, or Friday at the latest.

"That alone earns the Prada a place in history. The touch era started not with the iPhone, but with the Prada - which was a massively successful phone.

No it didn't, because no one copied the Prada. It was an evolutionary dead end. It had no descendants. Real evolution is full of examples like this. Full of examples of ecosystems pregnant with the possibility of a major new mutation, one that could lead to endless derivative forking mutations and ones that will thus change the ecosystem. But there are also plenty of examples of botched mutations, mutations that take the pregnant possibilities and express them a way that is an evolutionary dead end, in a way that leads no where.

The Prada was an evolutionary dead end because nobody copied it. Nobody. Nobody was inspired by it to redesign their phones. Nobody. Nobody changed their products or their product development because of the Prada. Nobody. The Prada was made first announced on December 12, 2006. The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs little more than a month later on January 9, 2007. Thus the two phones were made known to the world at almost the same time.

Since then countless phones have been released that work just like an iPhone. They work like that because of the success of the iPhone not because of the failure of the Prada. "

That is a laughably bad analogy, even by the standards of analogies - and it just goes to show that you have no clue how biological evolution actually works. Would you claim that dolphins are evolved from sharks because they share similar body shapes & similar adaptations to their environment?

The similarities are only superficial and there are fundamental differences between those two organisms, both morphologically AND genetically. There's a term for that: "convergent evolution", which basically means two or more organisms that develop similar traits, despite neither being descended from the other. Which is a much more accurate analogy for the relationship between Androids and iProducts.

If anything, your analogy is closer to intelligent design, if not out-and-out creationism. Maybe you should back and re-read some of those 10th grade biology texts, instead of basing your understanding of evolution on Pokemon.